ArticleOrthopadie (Heidelberg, Germany)2026
[Self-driving, fully motorized C-arm in spinal surgery: a comparative study].
Article in Orthopadie (Heidelberg, Germany), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIntraoperative imaging using mobile C‑arms is well established in spine surgery. Traditionally, the C‑arm operation is performed by "non-sterile" OR staff. The full motorization of mobile C‑arms enables direct control from the sterile field and automated movement paths, potentially improving efficiency and imaging quality.
objectivesThis prospective single-center study compared the use of a motorized mobile C‑arm (mC-arm) with a non-motorized standard C‑arm (sC-arm) in terms of intraoperative time, motion, and radiation parameters during spinal procedures. MATERIALS AND
methodsA total of 41 minimally invasive spine surgeries with either ventral or dorsal spondylodesis were included. C‑arm movements were recorded using the system's log files (mC-arm) or IMU sensors (sC-arm). Additionally, radiation exposure and time-related parameters were collected. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: In dorsal spondylodesis, there was a trend towards a reduction in the number of 2D images (-17.8%; p = 0.284) with improved collimation (+38.6%; p = 0.077) and a reduction in the dose area product (DAP) (-27.0% p = 0.483) when using the mC-arm, but without significance. In ventral spondylodesis, the use of the mC-arm showed a significant reduction in DAP (-53.0%; p = 0.040), a significant increase in the collimation rate (86.1% vs. 34.7%; p < 0.001), and a tendency towards shorter operating times (-22.0%; p = 0.197).
conclusionThe motorization of a mobile C‑arm combined with control from the sterile field can optimize intraoperative imaging and reduce radiation exposure. These findings suggest a substantial potential for workflow improvement that should be further evaluated in future studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42053630What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.